|
Ed,
Thanks for sending this along. Answers to the numerous questions
are inlined below.
On 2018-06-21 12:15 PM, Ed Bratt wrote:
I am tardy with the steering committee minutes for this past
Tuesday's meeting. Adding my summary of the discussion from
Tuesday (will be forthcoming in my post of steering committee
meeting minutes);
Does this committee recommend this document for publication?
(+1 requested by by Mike)
Opened discussion by noting there is still debate about how /
when IP rights are transferred (Dan). This does not appear to
be finalized yet. When does a contributor contribution become
transferred to the specification committee? When is said
contribution available by the committee to be re-conveyed to a
"user." What about various logistical issues (members coming
and going, long-lived specifications, etc.). Currently
outbound license is conveyed when compatibility is
demonstrated. Dan would like this to be elaborated more
carefully before initial publication.
I respectfully disagree that this must be elaborated before a draft
requirements document is published for community content. At the
pace we are going, it will be a long time before we reach consensus
on these points at the level of detail that Dan is requesting, and
further delay in getting community feedback is unwarranted.
Scott suggested that there are related issues in other
committees (IP advisory committee as an example was mentioned)
that aren't being folded into this. Mike is the effective
Chair of the IP committee. Ian: Is IP sub-committee membership
legal reps? Paul isn't sure. (Scott Peterson is rep. from Red
Hat.)
No, the IP committee is not "...membership legal reps". The Eclipse
Foundation's Intellectual Property Advisory Committee is a standing
committee of the Board of Directors, established in our Bylaws. It
currently has 4 appointed members. You will note the presence of
legal experts from Oracle, Red Hat, and IBM. This happy coincidence
pre-dates the creation of Jakarta EE initiative.
- Ed Merks, elected Committer Representative
- Richard Fontana, Red Hat. Scott K. Peterson of Red Hat also
joins the calls as an invited expert.
- Donald Smith, Oracle. Jim Wright and Rob Orr also join the
calls as an invited experts.
- Terry Carroll, IBM
- I participate on the calls, as does the Eclipse Foundation's
counsel Jeffrey Neuburger. Wayne and Sharon attend as well.
Some consensus that having broader discussions between active
related committees would be useful. Paul pointed out that IP
advisory is a standing Eclipse Foundation committee. (Sharon
and Wayne both attend.) Ian raised concerns that visibility
into actions of this committee is difficult to obtain.
The IP committee has been blocked for months on a couple of points
which are relatively minor compared to the entire scope of what we
are collectively working on. I agree that having a combined workshop
with the Spec Committee and the IP Advisory Committee makes
excellent sense. But at the moment I don't think that it's worth
anyone's time to do so.
Wayne confirmed that minutes are published.
That is incorrect. The committee keeps minutes, but we've never
published them anywhere that is publicly accessible.
Ian suggested that Minutes be made available for review.
(Wayne to look after this?)
Jakarta EE is not the only topic the committee discusses, although
lately that has been much of the effort. The minutes have never been
public because they describe some very complex legal issues, and
advice provided by attorneys. Sharing these types of discussions
publicly is generally considered a Very Bad Idea.
Dan reminds us that Lawyer/counsel detail is also necessary
for final document drafts. These, and several other
reservations about the document were noted. Ed observed that
it can be difficult to respond in writing to documents like
this. We agreed that this will be referred back to the
committee for further action, likely on Thursday.
This document in question is not in any way final. It is a draft
requirements document intended to solicit community feedback.
Steering Committee is not prepared to give +1 yet.
Hopefully my explanations above will help to achieve a +1 on
Tuesday.
Thanks.
![Avast logo]()
|
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
|
|
